Referencing my column yesterday on illegal immigration and the mortgage mess, Hans Bader at Open Market shares his experience. I’ve been getting a lot of e-mails with similar stories. Tip of the iceberg:
blog comments powered by Disqus
When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks. But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.
Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?”
Another strange lending practice also popped up when I purchased a home. I ultimately left my wife off the mortgage entirely, because I was told that since she had no credit history (despite being thrifty and having savings and no debts), putting her on the mortgage would actually get us a worse, higher interest rate than if I alone applied (I received a rate of 5%, a low rate by historical standards).
Why on Earth were we treated as worse off if my wife co-signed the loan, which makes no sense economically? It’s not like having her on the loan would have made me any poorer or less able to pay.
People I’ve talked to have theorized that it is a byproduct of two things: (a) discrimination lawsuits, and (b) courts’ indulgence towards junk science.
If the bank gave loans to white people like my wife with no credit, or bad credit, the bank would later look bad if was sued for discrimination, even if it was innocent. If a “fair-housing” group later sued the bank accusing it of discrimination, supported by a misleading “regression analysis” of the bank’s lending decisions, the bank could end up having to explain, at great expense, why it loaned money to my wife, but not to many minority borrowers who also had no credit or bad credit (never mind that my wife would have had a co-signor with good credit — me).
August 22, 2012 08:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
March 15, 2013 11:00 AM by Michelle Malkin
September 19, 2012 10:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
October 8, 2012 10:20 AM by Michelle Malkin
July 18, 2012 09:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
Daily Caller» Wyo. student who threatened to rape self on Facebook was convicted of assault
Daily Caller» David Brooks: ‘We as a country have become over-addicted to scandal’
Gay Patriot» What took the IRS so long to come clean about the scandal?
Gay Patriot» Meanwhile, at Obama’s EPA. . .
Green Room» Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout
Daily Caller» Bill Maher: GOP guilty of ‘treason’; Michael Moore: ‘They hate America’
Green Room» Feelgood video of the day
Gay Patriot» Jesus, on tax collectors